Relaxed Selection During a Recent Human Expansion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans have colonized the planet through a series of range expansions, which deeply impacted genetic diversity in newly settled areas and potentially increased the frequency of deleterious mutations on expanding wave fronts. To test this prediction, we studied the genomic diversity of French Canadians who colonized Quebec in the 17th century. We used historical information and records from ∼4000 ascending genealogies to select individuals whose ancestors lived mostly on the colonizing wave front and individuals whose ancestors remained in the core of the settlement. Comparison of exomic diversity reveals that: (i) both new and low-frequency variants are significantly more deleterious in front than in core individuals, (ii) equally deleterious mutations are at higher frequencies in front individuals, and (iii) front individuals are two times more likely to be homozygous for rare very deleterious mutations present in Europeans. These differences have emerged in the past six to nine generations and cannot be explained by differential inbreeding, but are consistent with relaxed selection mainly due to higher rates of genetic drift on the wave front. Demographic inference and modeling of the evolution of rare variants suggest lower effective size on the front, and lead to an estimation of selection coefficients that increase with conservation scores. Even though range expansions have had a relatively limited impact on the overall fitness of French Canadians, they could explain the higher prevalence of recessive genetic diseases in recently settled regions of Quebec.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it